Mastercard head of SE Asia goes all out with every myth, stereotype and piece of FUD he could possibly fit into 4.30 of attacking bitcoin.

This is scripted propaganda and it is excellent to watch. It really shows how worried they are that they have to make such an anti bitcoin informerci that can easily be taken apart. The part about what their core business is shows just how stupid they think their customers are

I see this as primarily a message to government officials: we'll help you collect taxes, apply capital controls and 'financial transparency' to your population so you can keep control. In turn you better start regulatorily strangling those goddamn cryptocurrencies!

A direct attack on human rights (imo) like financial privacy and freedom of economic interaction. Those things should be valued much higher than the governments ability to collect taxes or spy on their constituencies.

yep, totally ridiculous. the good thing is he twisted himself all up in knots and hypocrisies which to any intelligent person was laughable.

A little ridicule...

Matthew Driver 1:43: "It's quite hard to understand what the appeal is of a cryptocurrency"NL: "Then do not speak about what you do not understand"

Matthew Driver 2:56: "We at Mastercard are not completely ..um.. comfortable with the idea of cryptocurrencies largely because They go against the whole principle that we have established out business on which is really moving to a world beyond cash and assuring greater transparency and security and (chuckle) simplicity."NL: "That bit you mentioned before about not understanding cryptocurrencies? You really should study what transparency security and simplicity mean and how they are delivered better with cryptocurrencies by the efforts of a few years of hobbyist developing, than they are by your multi-billion multi-decade operation has accomplished. Do that before you think about bragging."

Matthew Driver 3:35: "Trust is a critical component in any payment system." NL: "You might think so until you have the opportunity to do without it as a requirement. Mastercard requires far more trust (and blind faith) than cryptocurrency. So if you mean that it is critical that folks trust you in order for you to soak up their money, than we agree."

yeah. it just goes to show you how far down the totalitarian rabbit hole these guys have gone. really scary shit.

Lol, oh brother. Listen to what he's saying.

1) Recourse. There's no recourse for a fraudulent transaction in the Bitcoin world. Sure, it's possible that in the future a bank or insurance company could act as an intermediary to shield people from these risks, but as it is right now, you're on your own.

2) Ease of use. Bitcoin wins in some circumstances. Charge cards win in other circumstances.

3) Transparency. No one likes oversight into their own financial matters, but like it or not, people in general want those who engage in illegal trade to be brought to justice. They also expect everyone else to pay their taxes. This isn't about what you want, it's about what the voters demand. Bitcoin makes forensic accounting more troublesome, so naturally law enforcement and the tax collectors bristle at the idea of criminals utilizing technology that makes their job harder.

And no, I'm not saying he's 100% right, but to say this is "scary", "dangerous", etc. is simply fear mongering. MasterCard isn't going to embrace Bitcoin competition, but I don't think anything he said was outright disingenuous. If anything, his arguments were tepid. He didn't even mention the tax implications of using Bitcoins for something as simple as a cup of coffee. I don't find anything troubling about his statements, they're pretty much what you'd expect from someone in his position. May the best man win.

This is hogwash.

Bitcoin makes forensic accounting less troublesome, not more.Bitcoin comes pre-subpoenaed. All transactions on the block chain are public, unencrypted, and permanent.Contrast this with financial institutions that can change their records, auditors that can shred documents, and companies that can refuse to comply with disclosure requirements, delay and forstal.

If you want to launder money, forget about Bitcoin. Start a bank instead, it is a lot easier that way, and a lot more lucrative.

In 2012, a single bank paid more in fines for their money laundering than Bitcoin's market cap in 2013. Bitcoin is peanuts, its not even big enough to handle real money laundering today.By the way, 2012 wasn't anything extreme.

In 2014m BNP (a different single bank) is paying US$8.9Billion this year in fines for money laundering. If you think these fines are going to slow the banks down... they aren't. Its just a part of the cost of doing business. Pay the vig to a government to cut them in on the deal so you can carry on.

Keep in mind, this is only what was caught, not what was missed, no telling how much.

Keep in mind, this is only what was caught, not what was missed, no telling how much.

True, although bear in mind that "caught" (and fines paid) doesn't necessarily mean guilty in the casual sense either. Often times the actual offense being charged or investigated (and then settled) are technical violations of recordkeeping requirements, failure to follow the bank's own AML policies, etc. These may or may not relate directly to actual criminal activity. This doesn't mean they aren't guilty of course. For example, one reason a bank might settle is to stop the digging before it uncovers something worse.

I'd love to watch a voiceover video of both this presentation and the Ernst & Young presentation, replacing any usage of 'Bitcoin' with 'cash'.I mean, as a company, they seem to have strategized on an attack vector, but this seems to bring to light both the ridiculousness and luddite nature of their stance better than anything else I've been able to come up with.

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."Hard to argue we've moved on to the fight stage.One step away.

Bitcoin makes forensic accounting less troublesome, not more.Bitcoin comes pre-subpoenaed. All transactions on the block chain are public, unencrypted, and permanent.Contrast this with financial institutions that can change their records, auditors that can shred documents, and companies that can refuse to comply with disclosure requirements, delay and forstal.

If you want to launder money, forget about Bitcoin. Start a bank instead, it is a lot easier that way, and a lot more lucrative.

In 2012, a single bank paid more in fines for their money laundering than Bitcoin's market cap in 2013. Bitcoin is peanuts, its not even big enough to handle real money laundering today.By the way, 2012 wasn't anything extreme.

In 2014m BNP (a different single bank) is paying US$8.9Billion this year in fines for money laundering. If you think these fines are going to slow the banks down... they aren't. Its just a part of the cost of doing business. Pay the vig to a government to cut them in on the deal so you can carry on.

Keep in mind, this is only what was caught, not what was missed, no telling how much.

Haha. Thanks for the laugh.

Sure, the blockchain is public, but good luck linking a cautious criminal to a wallet. And good luck tracking coins through a well-designed mixing service, not to mention portions of ill gotten coins being sprinkled like pixie dust across innocent wallets to throw off the authorities. Really, this isn't supernatural. It isn't complicated. A patient, thoughtful criminal will have no problem evading even the best forensic specialists. It's a nice feature for Bitcoin users and a pain in the ass for investigators. A losing battle. Does Bitcoin offer true anonymity right out of the box? No, not directly, but the tools are there.

You're arguing that since most money laundering is done through banks, then money laundering through Bitcoin isn't practical? You realize how ridiculous that argument is, I hope. Essentially all of the world's wealth sits in banks. Thus, I would expect most laundering to originate from those banks. Besides, you're talking about a technology that hasn't even been around for a decade. It'll take just a little time to catch up.

Sure, the blockchain is public, but good luck linking a cautious criminal to a wallet. And good luck tracking coins through a well-designed mixing service, not to mention portions of ill gotten coins being sprinkled like pixie dust across innocent wallets to throw off the authorities. Really, this isn't supernatural. It isn't complicated. A patient, thoughtful criminal will have no problem evading even the best forensic specialists. It's a nice feature for Bitcoin users and a pain in the ass for investigators. A losing battle. Does Bitcoin offer true anonymity right out of the box? No, not directly, but the tools are there.

You're arguing that since most money laundering is done through banks, then money laundering through Bitcoin isn't practical? You realize how ridiculous that argument is, I hope. Essentially all of the world's wealth sits in banks. Thus, I would expect most laundering to originate from those banks. Besides, you're talking about a technology that hasn't even been around for a decade. It'll take just a little time to catch up.

No I am arguing that it is easier to launder money with a bank, and easier to get away with it by using a bank. The higher the amount, the more true this comparison is.

The "tools" you mention for Bitcoin are also available in traditional banking, it is just harder to track through traditional banks because none of the transactions are transparent to government by law without subpoena.

Really the main advantage to forensics with banks is just that banks are are mostly slower.

You speculate that it will take time to catch up... however we might be surprised at the crypto currency tracking tools already automated in some of the nation-state software dev shops.

yeah. it just goes to show you how far down the totalitarian rabbit hole these guys have gone. really scary shit.

This is a war. The so called economy has never been something different than a war, because its root and ground is Organized Violence (state and church). It is the society. Beyond the society of the citizens (which per se is war and collectivism) you'll find the real human, the absence of the society: the community (autarchy, anarchy, self-sufficiency = the absence of the economy).

„We are literally in a race between our ability to build and deploy technology, and their ability to build and deploy laws and treaties. Neither side is likely to back down or wise up until it has definitively lost the race.“

Keep in mind, this is only what was caught, not what was missed, no telling how much.

True, although bear in mind that "caught" (and fines paid) doesn't necessarily mean guilty in the casual sense either. Often times the actual offense being charged or investigated (and then settled) are technical violations of recordkeeping requirements, failure to follow the bank's own AML policies, etc. These may or may not relate directly to actual criminal activity. This doesn't mean they aren't guilty of course. For example, one reason a bank might settle is to stop the digging before it uncovers something worse.

There shouldn't be this grey area. If you break the law you should be held accountable. If it is technical, then it can be considered, but there should be admissions of guilt and extra compliance required. Unfortunately there are many many instances when the law is broken and the 'guilty' party pays a fine without admitting guilt. The US prosecutorial bodies have an ironic policy of opting for penalties over prison. It stems from Eric Holder's Clinton era memo (that was actually relatively aggressive - the ironic part) that contained the sentence "prosecutors may consider the collateral consequences of a corporate criminal conviction in determining whether to charge the corporation with a criminal offense". Meant to mean that there may be other ways to punish to stop people losing jobs etc if a company was shut, it became putty in the hands of rooms full of lawyers, especially after the Bush era Arthur Andersen case fell apart.

All in all, it is a case of two systems; if I run a business I can be shut down for any level of infraction and I absolutely will if I defraud the public on a large scale. I won't get a fine (that is less than the profit I made) and not have to admit guilt.